RagnarokAngel posted:

Physically speaking humans kind of suck. We're not very strong or fast compared to most animals of similar size and while we have color eyesight we can't see nearly as far or as detailed as say, some birds. Opposable thumbs are useful but that's really about it. The ability to create tools to compensate for weakness is pretty much what let humans become dominant and medical innovations feel like they'd fall under that.

Frogfingers posted:

If you want to find something the human body is suited for, it is distance. Before people had tools like bows and other ranged appliances, we had to chase down our prey. Cheetahs are fast but they can't regulate their temperature as well as we can, so they can only sprint briefly. We are made to run down our prey until it collapses from exhaustion. We don't need to be the strongest because when we come into contact with our prey, it's already dying. We can see well enough to glean where an animal is moving and how long ago, physically spotting it from miles away isn't important if we're cognisant of traces that animal has left.

This goes into more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting

mr. mephistopheles posted:

The reason the cartoon is idiotic and terrible is because conservative dipshit is saying a a belief in the concept of natural selection necessitates a belief that the best option for human society is to function the same way as nature, which is completely uncaring and often cruel by standards of human empathy and compassion. Like yeah our advances in technology are almost certainly making us less likely to radically change genetically as a species, but unless you're literally Hitler the response is most likely going to be so what?

Frogfingers posted:

If you want to find something the human body is suited for, it is distance. Before people had tools like bows and other ranged appliances, we had to chase down our prey. Cheetahs are fast but they can't regulate their temperature as well as we can, so they can only sprint briefly. We are made to run down our prey until it collapses from exhaustion. We don't need to be the strongest because when we come into contact with our prey, it's already dying. We can see well enough to glean where an animal is moving and how long ago, physically spotting it from miles away isn't important if we're cognisant of traces that animal has left.

This goes into more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting

Dirk the Average posted:

It also helps that we can eat plants too, and they're not exactly the most difficult things to acquire.

Frogfingers posted:

That's not exactly the super power that persistence hunting is. My dog can eat french fries.

Gravel Gravy posted:

Don't forget peanut butter.

Frogfingers posted:

That's one thing the dog has over me. Whenever I eat peanut butter I go into anaphylaxis.

mr. mephistopheles posted:

Survival of the fittest is just a term to better describe the mechanism of natural selection, which is explicitly about which genetic traits have more reproductive success, so no I don't think it's valid to say humans making vaccines is an example of survival of the fittest and I do think it is valid to say that humans who are susceptible to diseases getting to reproduce without regard for their susceptibility to those diseases is in defiance of the concept of natural selection and is a more or less proper use of the word.

And your bear analogy doesn't make any sense because bears have no need to operate in the winter so what does it have to do with them being fit? If bears needed to operate in the cold to get food, then yes, all the bears that couldn't operate in the winter would die off from not being "fit" for their environment. Bear hibernation very well could be an example of survival of the fittest because at one point there may have been bears that didn't hibernate within a species but they migrated to a colder climate with longer winters or something to that effect and the bears that didn't hibernate starved to death during the winter when there was no food and so only the bears with the genes that made them hibernate continued to reproduce.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

This is actually more accurate. Darwin himself even said "it is not the strongest of species that survive but the ones most responsive to change." Everything is changing all the time and generally speaking the things that survived were the ones that could fit the new environment. Some species survive a very long time because their physical traits can live in a huge variety of environments. Crocodiles and alligators are a good example of this; they've been around for millions of years. They aren't all that specialized beyond "lives in bodies of water" and "ambush predator." Extremely specializes species are extremely fragile. Something that can only survive by eating something very specific die off if that thing goes away. If eucalyptus trees vanished then well, there goes koalas!

Humans survived largely by being far more adaptable than anything else. Not only could we adapt ourselves to the environment (tools, clothing, agriculture, buildings, etc.) we also adapt our environments to us. If a nasty predator is loving us up we band together and gently caress up that predator.

SmuglyDismissed posted:

I think people are using the word Adapt interchangeably to discuss two different concepts. The ability of humans as individuals or a society to adapt to different situations using our intelligence is different than the evolutionary adaptation through successive generations of creatures passing on DNA to their offspring through successful reproduction.

A generalist may be the most widely successful species but I am not evolving because I can put on a coat when I move to a colder climate. Certain extreme situations will be dominated by creatures specifically adapted to that environment. In this instance, this species would be the fittest.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

Yeah it's different than evolutionary adaption but the really interesting thing is that intelligence is itself an evolutionary adaption that gives humans the ability to do something that is better than evolutionary adaption. With evolutionary adaption you just kind of randomly mutate and take your chances. Humans went "bump that noise."

SmuglyDismissed posted:

A generalist may be the most widely successful species but I am not evolving because I can put on a coat when I move to a colder climate.

SmuglyDismissed posted:

I think that is the wrong way of looking at it. I do not believe that possessing intelligence puts us outside of the evolutionary processes in any way. We do the exact same fundamental things that every other species does. It's not like we are super scientific about who we gently caress...

FuzzySkinner posted:

I loving doubt this was made by a Canadian.

I realize that's a "No poo poo" type of thing, but I would doubt they would be saying such right wing poo poo about american politics when they're own country is actually you know...well run and quite liberal.

BatteredFeltFedora posted:

Don't most Canadians not refer to people from the US as "American" that often, since "America" includes a lot more than just the US?

Guavanaut posted:

We are the only species that has had people voluntarily opt out of reproduction on ethical grounds though. Zapffe had a whole thing (The Last Messiah) about how he perceived there to be a fundamental disconnect between humans and other living things at the point where we realized that we would suffer and inevitably die, which is why he considered reproducing immoral. I'm not sure if there are any taking that position even amongst the higher primates.

You could consider those people inherently unfit from a Darwinian/genetic perspective, but how about from a memetic perspective (would Newton have had a bigger impact on humanity if he had become a blacksmith and had 10 kids? His memes are certainly in more people than his genes would have been.) or from an ethical perspective?

Sir Rolo posted:

Sir Rolo posted:

Poizen Jam posted:

Go figure LL101 are antivax. I'd sarcastically quip 'big loss' but I don't really revel in the deaths of children and the immunocompromised, regardless of political affiliation.

Doctor Butts posted:

Freedom to expose other people's kids to disease.

Blarghalt posted:

If anything else this is pretty solid proof that LL101 is an antivaxxer which I think gives you moral permission to beat the everliving gently caress out of them.

SmuglyDismissed posted:

I'm not saying intelligence and generational knowledge don't affect how things evolve. Just that it is absolutely separate from the genetic processes involved. Maybe if we ever reach the point where we are engineering the next generation from the ground up we can say we no longer evolve in the Darwinian sense. Until then we are just another mammal shooting our DNA around. The fact that we can create moral and philosophical frameworks around what we do does not change that fact.

Chimera-gui posted:

One of my relatives seems to think that the reason France and Britain are having problems is because they're "socialists".

Fulchrum posted:

They got their new marching orders this week,

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

Lots of American conservatives are painfully clueless about other countries, news at 11.

VideoTapir posted:

My father has been to two foreign countries: Canada and Mexico. Both were decades ago.

In his mind, every country is either Mexico or Canada.

ZenVulgarity posted:

Why isn't immunization portrayed as helping the sick and infirm who can be ravaged by diseases that even if you, by choice and maybe quite healthy, may be able to battle through? Shouldn't it be the ideal to make sure all members of society don't suffer the ravages of disease?

It seems rather asinine that people w would refuse it almost on a "we can" basis with very suspect evidence to back up their thoughts.

Fulchrum posted:

Because helping others even if it might mean a slight inconvenience comes so naturally to conservatives. Which is why they overwhelmingly support the ACA

Everblight posted:

Seriouschat is there really a central "here are the talking points for this week" authority? How can I get on this email list? I really, really want to see what it looks like/who it's from/who it's to.

ZenVulgarity posted:

Ask him about Sri Lanka

Everblight posted:

Seriouschat is there really a central "here are the talking points for this week" authority? How can I get on this email list? I really, really want to see what it looks like/who it's from/who it's to.

Everblight posted:

Seriouschat is there really a central "here are the talking points for this week" authority? How can I get on this email list? I really, really want to see what it looks like/who it's from/who it's to.

Chimera-gui posted:

Oi vey:

quote:

1. The middle class live comfortably, the rich embrace being uncomfortable

2. The middle class live above their means, the rich live below

3. The middle class climb the corporate ladder, the rich own the ladder

4. The middle class are friends with everyone, the rich choose wisely

5. The middle class work to earn, the rich work to learn

6. The middle class have things, the rich have money

7. The middle class focus on saving, the rich focus on earning

8. The middle class are emotional with money, the rich are logical

9. The middle class underestimate their potential, the rich set huge goals

10. The middle class believe in hard work, the rich believe in leverage

ZenVulgarity posted:

I'd understand the "religious right" if they were overwhelmingly anti abortion while also being for things like the ACA and other social projects

I know every time I bring that up the only thing that gets brought up is fictional system abuse cases with no meaningful statistics to back it up

Even if there are advises and they're in the minority it still doesn't seem to fly

Sound like a bunch of whiny children to me